Um, not sure where you've been for the last few decades. Every time Republicans take over they cause economic recessions or depressions. It took until last year to recover from the Bush economic recession of 2008-2010. Now the Repubs want a repeat, as they try to dismantle Dodd Frank and let Wall Street do the same catastrophic antics yet again.
What are you talking about? When did the Republicans ever take over and cause a recession or depression? You are calling the recession of 2008 - 2010 a "Bush" recession? The President was Obama and both branches of Congress were Democratic. Whose recession is that? For most of the eight years Bush was in office, the U.S. had the largest economic boom in its history. Record low unemployment, highest wealth creation ever, extremely high growth in the Gross Domestic Product. Because we had a downturn in the last three months of Bush's presidency, people try to paint that as some sort of absolute failure. I will take that any day over what we have now.
Like I said in my post, the last six years of Obama have seen more regulation, less privatization, more food stamps, more welfare, and more unemployment benefits. And what has this done for our economy?
Hey Idaho Man, that is one hell of a link! Thanks for posting.
Hyper-deregulation and privatization, leading to another financial bubble and collapse, slashing of food stamps and welfare programs and unemployment benefits, slashing of infrastructure spending, all leading to a long economic depression as the consumer class' spending power is crushed and the middle class is finally destroyed.
I certainly wish all this WOULD happen, but I don't think any of it would lead to a long economic depression as you say. Please explain why the exact opposite of what you said here has been going on for the last six years (more regulation, less privatization, more food stamps, more welfare programs and unemployment benefits), and we DO have a long economic depression.
I found it highly hypocritical that a woman from Russia should be casting aspersions about the U.S. imposing their will on another country. When she kept saying that Iraqis did not want democracy imposed on them, Monckton could have asked her "Then why do they keep Democracy going until this day?" Despite the troubles in Iraq, they have not yet reverted back to a Dictatorship.
In typical lefty fashion, the Russian woman repeatedly tried to talk over Lord Monckton and cut off his dialogue with her own.
Using a flash on camera is the worst lighting ever devised.
I'll bet you didn't know that?
Hello Larry, I have never responded to single post of yours, but since you did not mention anything about Zionism or the Jews in this short comment, I feel compelled to agree with you on this very specific issue. Flashes mounted on cameras give about the worst possible lighting situation possible. Especially when doing portraits. All the normal three-dimentional structures become flattened out because the shadows all disappear. This has caused me tremendous headaches when painting portraits from someone's old snapshots, which is what I am doing at this very moment.
Now in the spirit of this thread, I am unwatching. Good Luck.
Frank T wrote:
Steve, Good theory but wrong. In addition to the c... (
I am sorry, but it is exactly like I said. The liberal States that have raised the minimum wage have made only token raises, enough to keep the masses from grumbling. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. The absolute highest minimum wage on the State level is The District of Columbo (the annoying stogie smokin' detective) at $9.50 an hour. Vermont and Connecticut are just a smidgeon over $9.00 an hour. This is barely two dollars more. And those are the highest ones. The recent protesters from fast food restaurants were asking for anywhere between fifteen and thirty dollars an hour!
I still stand entirely by my statement.
My point, that all of you conservatives miss, is ... (
How have you proven that it is not an economic disaster? Here is something to consider:
There are liberal enclaves in all the big cities of the United States, where there is virtually NO republican opposition in their legislatures. Every one of them could have raised their local or State minimum wage as high as they pleased at any time they wanted to. Yet in reality, not a single one of them has ever raised the minimum wage more than a token amount, in order to keep their base from grumbling too much. This is because even democrat politicians know that it would be a financial disaster. Seattle has taken the boldest step by enacting a raise to $15.00 an hour. But even they are phasing it in incrementally over several years time. Why not do it immediately if it is so good?
This country has always been about people working hard. Not everyone has the advantage of privilege, but everyone has the opportunity to do an honest day's work. If someone is willing to work hard, then he or she should not have to live in poverty. Plain and simple.
This sounds well and good, but it does not answer my question "Why should they not have to live in poverty?" You just kind of said "Well, they just shouldn't!" We live in a super abundant society and I think that people are so used to this that they sometimes get the idea that everybody deserves to have whatever they need, because of some immutable law of nature. I know this is an ideal that most people strive for, but things don't always work out like we want them to. You might think this seems like a minor point, but you can't just blink your eves like "I Dream of Jeanie" and declare that it will be.
"Please don't hand me bullshit about improving his or her own situation". I have no idea what you mean by that.
"As to your second question, the Constitution guarantees everyone "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The first word there is "life". If you get sick and die, you don't have life. Health is as basic a human right as free speech. We guarantee our citizens the right to carry guns, we should guarantee health care to everyone. Being healthy should not send people into bankruptcy or make them homeless. As human beings we need to take care of each other, and guarantee that everyone has access to quality healthcare."
I don't think that the writer of the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution) had in mind socialized healthcare when he wrote that. He meant that "we will not kill you". There is no right to healthcare. You may think there SHOULD be one, but there is not one in this country. As far as everybody should have access to quality healthcare, they already do. And they did long before Obamacare was enacted. But I know personally, people who have received free healthcare that did not deserve it in my opinion. I actually don't buy into this notion that everybody deserves healthcare.
Conservatives rail against raising the minimum wag... (
Yes, conservatives rail against raising the minimum wage, but that is exactly my point. The minimum wage is the government forcing one individual to pay another individual a certain amount of money, regardless if he earns it or not. The restaurant owner you have cited is doing this of his own free will. If the business plan doesn't work out, he is free to discard or change it. The government should not dictate how you should run your own business unless you are impinging on someone else.
The story of the restaurant doesn't lay to a lie any economic arguments by conservatives at all because there is no answer yet on whether it succeeded or not. The guy just announced what he is going to do. Nobody has any idea whether it will work or not. In fact Racmanaz posted a story of a restaurant that tried it, and found that they had to raise their prices in order to survive.
I don't think you have a firm grasp on conservative ideas.
This last question is not meant to provoke or insult you. Why do you think that no one in this country should have to work full time and still live in poverty, and why no one regardless of their employment situation should be without healthcare?
I know a lot of people on this forum disagree with... (
I am right with you on this Tschmath. His lines of discussion are so outlandish that I find it silly to try to refute them. It would be a waste of time that could be spent on so many other topics, with people who at least have a couple of brain cells to rub together that can form some sort of rational thought.
The Obama administration's silence on such issues is deafening. Don't forget that Obama was silent for over a week when Iran's young masses were demonstrating and threatening to revolt against their government. Only after prodding from all the prominent democrats such as Hillary and Biden, did he issue a statement. Even then, he lied about it and said that he had been supporting them publicly all along.
"OK, Righties, What is your answer to this???"
What makes you think right-wingers would have a problem with this? A staple in conservative (or right-wing) philosophy is letting business owners do what they damn well please. I say hooray to whatever they would like to try. I am completely unaware of any right-wing opposition to waiters getting tips or a decent salary.
Chill a bit. I think Mr. Seward is being sarcastic and mocking the people who refuse to acknowledge the danger of militant Islam even when it stares them in the face ... or murders people.[/quote]
Thanks Mr. LA Shooter. I considered putting an "end of sarcasm" disclaimer at the end of my message, but I thought it would dampen the humor.
And please don't shoot too many people in L.A. They have enough problems.
I am sure this cannot be true. A number of liberal posters on Hedgehog have pointed out that there is nothing to fear from Militant Islam. I have learned that it is racist and right-wing propagandist to relay such stories, even if they are true.